Craig Lamson

Jack, I am not going to argue with a senile old man. Alfred Hitchcock used the foreshortening effect in many of his movies. In vertigo when Jimmy Stewart was having a vertigo attack - Jimmy stayed the same size while the background was growing larger - that is one example of something that you just said does not exist. The "Foreshortening effect" can be researched on the Internet by doing a simple google search. "Images taken with long telephoto lenses exhibit a characteristic perspective distortion known as compression of space. Objects that are actually far apart appear unusually close together, and observed texture gradients and optic flows impart a distorted sense of orientation and depth." Bill Miller Hitchcock used a filming technique called a dolly zoom to achieve the "vertigo effect": "The dolly zoom is an unsettling in-camera special effect that appears to undermine normal visual perception in film. The effect is achieved by using the setting of a zoom lens to adjust the field of view while the camera dollies (or moves) towards or away from the subject in such a way as to keep the subject the same size in the frame throughout. In its classic form, the camera is pulled away from a subject whilst the lens zooms in, or vice-versa. Thus, during the zoom, there is a continuous perspective distortion, the most directly noticeable feature being that the background appears to change size relative to the subject. As the human visual system uses both size and perspective cues to judge the relative sizes of objects, seeing a perspective change without a size change is a highly unsettling effect, and the emotional impact of this effect is greater than the description above can suggest. The visual appearance for the viewer is that either the background suddenly grows in size and detail overwhelming the foreground; or the foreground becomes immense and dominates its previous setting. Which of these two apparent effects predominates depends on which way the dolly zoom occurs. The effect was invented by Irmin Roberts, a Paramount second-unit cameraman, and was famously used by Alfred Hitchcock in his film Vertigo, although it appeared earlier at the climax to his film Spellbound." Nobody in Dealey Plaza used the "dolly zoom". Jack Thank you for confirming for all of us that you were full of crap when you said.. " No known lens can stay in focus in the foreground and have the background zoom." Now try dealing with the rest of your mistakes detailed in post 29.

Wow Shanet, have any real evidence that the zap film was taken from a higher camera position or did you just stay at a Holiday Inn last night? Why do I ask? Because you have shown over and over again that you are a complete moron when it comes to photography.... ...and besides we can't allow YOU to have the last word now can we....

Bump for davie....are you a man of your word? Ever going to deal with this or are you gutless? Ah... what word might that be? Don't see where there's any Lone Neuter's I'm looking to impress with my truth? Certainly not slumming for new clients. Who do I have to impress with ANY word, hell this is the internet... If you can't convince me, the guy that can't prove the Z-film is altered, you got dog-pokey, champ.... nothing but white noise so deal with it.... Now, where's a functioning NASA link! NASA's inventory control number would be nice, special, SPECIAL NASA Apollo photo... if you cropped the image an overlay of the crop OVER the original -- we'll go from there, You don't have the time, be a man; have Miller do it! Try post 56 in this thread davie, it appears that among your other faults, reading is one as well... Can't wait to see exactly HOW you deal with Armstrongs shadow, seeing as how White and Costella say impossibe but simply taking a camera ouside in late afternoon proves them wrong! Have fun there sport, lets see if you are honest.

Bump for davie....are you a man of your word? Ever going to deal with this or are you gutless?

Jack all of this is simply blatant misinformation. That it comes from someone who is held as a "photo expert" by many on this forum and elsewhere is highly amusing. It also speaks volumes about the lack of photographic knowlege of your supporters. Truly amazing! Lets take a look at your misinformation (or should that be DISinformation?) "According to the focal length, a lens determines only the cropping of an image." This is only partially true and then in only one specfic instance. A lens will only crop an image, over a lens of a different focal length ONLY if the two lense are used from the exact same camera to subject distance. Period. Change the camera to subject distance between lenses and your above statement does not apply. "Whatever a lens may "magnify", it "magnifies everything equally", like binoculars or a telescope." Totally untrue. The size relationship between objects in the foreground and the background is dependant on both the focal length of the lens and the distance from the camera to the foreground subject and the distance from the camera to the background subject. The size between the foreground and background will not always enlarge nor reduce equally. The foreshortening effect of a telephoto lens is a prime example. "It never MAGNIFIES SELECTIVELY as "Miller" misinforms. And he pretends to know photography." Actually Miller has it right. It is YOU who is providing the misinformation. And it seems it is YOU who is pretending to know photography.

Jack, I am not going to argue with a senile old man. Alfred Hitchcock used the foreshortening effect in many of his movies. In vertigo when Jimmy Stewart was having a vertigo attack - Jimmy stayed the same size while the background was growing larger - that is one example of something that you just said does not exist. The "Foreshortening effect" can be researched on the Internet by doing a simple google search. "Images taken with long telephoto lenses exhibit a characteristic perspective distortion known as compression of space. Objects that are actually far apart appear unusually close together, and observed texture gradients and optic flows impart a distorted sense of orientation and depth." Bill Miller What "Miller" describes is known as SFX or special effects. But he is ignorant of such things. No known lens can stay in focus in the foreground and have the background zoom. As David Healy can instruct, Hitchcock frequently used REAR PROJECTION SCREEN backgrounds to achieve such effects. Alternately, they can be produced with matte insertions. Nowadays such effects are done with greenscreen backgrounds and computers. "Miller" needs to understand photography before he instructs senile researchers. Jack Actually ANY lens can stay focused on the foreground while zooming in tighter on the background.....

3+ years and this is the best you manage? Verify the problems the Costella study made, have a Physicist endorse your position, we'll move on, should be a peice of cake, yes? If I remember correctly, John Costella was going to be the Lone Nutter's/Dealey Plaza photo historical record savior (who spent weeks courting him? then to be told by Costella, they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground) -- then lo and behold look what happened, Costella quote: "the Zapruder Film is a fraud...". THAT surprised even ME... So, whoops, no wonder why your pissed... psst, there are NO Elm Street lighting questions! Your expertise can remain in the studio... we don't need it! Is it ANY wonder why this case has languished... You have a VERY faulty memory bow wow.... No Elm street lighting problems? Surely you jest! Why finding "problems" with the lighting on Elm has become an epidemic due to the ignorant likes of White. Its been a real hoot puncturing this massive stupidity ! Costella HIMSELF verified the problems wiht his sign study...its impossible to take images from two different camera positions and alter them to make them appear to be from the same lens axis...yet his faulty study still stands both in print and on the web. Then he makes the really stupid claim that verticals in a photograph cannot change angle in a photograph and then he applies this the the LEANING Stemmons sign! Physist needed? No way! None of this stuff is rocket science and poor old Costella, after being puffed up by Fetzer and the zombies at the cult forum, fancies himself an expert on photography. Sadly for the zombies he is no where near an expert, not even witn his self professed moniker as an ..."expert in the properties of light...hell he can't understand how a simple shadow works and last I checked a shadow is a "property of light" Now lets put YOU in the spotlight bow wow... in YOUR professional opinion is this shadow possible? You need a physist to figure this one out or will a simple emperical test do the trick? Mr. Light volunteers to do A SIMPLE EMPIRICAL TEST for us! I look forward to it! It will be very educational to see how the sun casts shadows from multiple directions. And I look forward to seeing where his shadow is in the UNCROPPED FRAME when the sun is directly behind him. Wow...what a treat...an EMPIRICAL TEST from Mr. Light himself. It should be very educational! Jack Well...we still wait for Lampoon to post his EMPIRICAL study. Or is it missing in action, like the Kodak expert we were promised? Jack Uh Jack, its YOU who needs to produce the study, after all its YOU who made the claim its impossible for the armstrong shadow to be anywhere besides the center of the frame....So hop to it old man! Show us what you are made of. You can operate a camera...right? Oh I found an old test shot on this forum that trashes your stupid claim. I was just having some fun with a new 12mm lens for a 35mm digital camera and guess what my shadow is clear on the left side of the frame. Impossible you say...nonsense anyone can do it. How about you old man? Care to try? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry25043 BTW this link was in the LAST post for the reading impared like you. Added on edit: I just checked the meta data on this file and I was wrong about the focal length setting. The 12mm to 24mm zoom lens was set on 17mm not 12 mm.

My photo is EXACTLY as I planned it, and it that respect it is a perfect photo. It follows the letter of the rule as posted by John Simkin. For the record I was ousted from ONE forum, DellaRosa's cult forum, along with a number of others that post on this forum including Mr. Simkin. Seems at the cult forum they really CAN'T handle the truth. have a very nice day. BTW, you ever gonna own up to the lie you told upthread? A little birdy told me ths is standard practice for you. Complain about everyone and their brother writing falsehoods and here you are doing EXACTLY what you claim to dispise. How typical of the left.

I've posted a second link that works, the image number and the actual image is posted in this thread THREE times. Now do you have the BALLS to actually deal with this and give your professional opinion or not? How does moon shadows move this case forward? A couple of ways. First it adds one more nail in the coffin of Jack White's disinformation and outright fraud. Second it puts you on the spot to actually DEAL with a claim directly and finally it proves once and for all that Costella has no clue about the "properties of light", is in no way an expert on optics and that a physicist is not required to debunk Costella's junk science. So you gonna hang your limp d__k out on the line or are you simply a chicken? What are you afraid of davie? Heres another link for you davie... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry25043

apollo image number: AS11-40-5961 try the link again: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...1-40-5961HR.jpg

Moron alert! Shanet goes where no sane person goes! Jack has no clue about the shadows in this shot and its now clear that Shanet has lost his mind! What a waste of higher education!

Gosh, that really hurts. Crawl back into your snakehole Hogan.

Yeah, right. Spoken like a typical loser liberal. Blah Blah Blah...about all you are good for Hogan...

When you LOSE Hogan the honest thing to do is admit it. Your own words tell me that you are not honest. Simple as that. I've not admitted I'm a racist, all I've done is point out simple fact that can be found in US census data. That you consider that racist speaks volumes about your lack of honesty and character or rather the lack of both. Why should I provide a citation for articles that have already been placed in the thread? Because you are unable to read and then remember what you have read? Sheesh. I do not hate for anyone. I do disilke a few people, and you are among that select group, but hate...never.. Claiming people hate others however is a very common tactic of the misguided left.

It was Lamson that failed to provide a source or link for his Zogby claims. I've never been good at reading the mind of a racist. Apparently, this is the Zogby poll Lamson belatedly refers to: Zogby Poll Finds Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support New 9/11 Investigation For Immediate Release May 22, 2006 Media Contact: Mike Berger, 314-308-4893, press@911truth.org NEW ZOGBY POLL REVEALS OVER 70 MILLION VOTING AGE AMERICANS DISTRUST OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY AND SUPPORT NEW INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE US GOVERNMENT ROLE IN THE ATTACKS.* - 911Truth.org urges 2006 reform candidates to recognize a powerful new constituency. (Utica, NY) - Although the Bush administration continues to exploit September 11 to justify domestic spying, unprecedented spending and a permanent state of war, a new Zogby poll reveals that less than half of the American public trusts the official 9/11 story or believes the attacks were adequately investigated. The poll is the first scientific survey of Americans' belief in a 9/11 cover up or the need to investigate possible US government complicity, and was commissioned to inform deliberations at the June 2-4 "9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future" conference in Chicago. Poll results indicate 42% believe there has indeed been a cover up (with 10% unsure) and 45% think "Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success" (with 8% unsure). The poll of American residents was conducted from Friday, May 12 through Tuesday, May 16, 2006. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/- 2.9. All inquiries about questions, responses and demographics should be directed to Zogby International. I'm sure Lamson supports the organization that commissioned this poll. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060522022041421 It's funny how Lamson labels others with his pet nicknames, is full of hate and vitriol towards anyone and everyone that doesn't agree with him, and holds minorities in low esteem is so quick to accuse others of "ranting" when they question his views. By the way, Lamson wrote: "Why did I leave out racial and minorites?" Nice syntax. If one didn't know better, it almost sounds like it's Lamson who is "ranting." Lamson giving others advice on learning to read and learning to research is equivalent to......Well, you get the idea. Good god Hogan, you are the PERFECT Lefty! Racist! Thats so funny and oh so predictable from a moron like you who has lost an argument. For YOUR education please re-read the entire thread and you will find that BOTH Zogby polls were quoted. If you actaully had the ability to READ you would have known. LOL! Sorry Hogan you LOSE again... BTW if you want to look for HATE take a good look in the mirror, you will find plenty.

Why did Lamson leave out "members of racial and ethnic minorities" in his interpretation of the "most interesting passage from the article?" Afraid to characterize them as ignorant and uninformed? The Zogby poll (August 2004): Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855 Aside from omitting the fact that it was 49.3% of New Yorkers (not such a long way from a majority) and that the Zogby poll is two years old, Lamson must apparently feel that New Yorkers, as well as racial and ethnic minorities are among the "ignorant and uininformed." The currents of racism and true ignorance may run deep, but they are never really that far from the surface. Why did I leave out racial and minorites? Because its what I wanted to do. Afraid to call them ignorant? not at all...most of them are..and Dimocrats to boot. You need to learn to read Hogan. We discussed the polls above and for your information there are TWO Zogby polls, one national and the old one you are quoting. Learn to research before you rant. Oh wait, I'm guessing you are a Democrat...never mind. And yes I consider most of New York to be among the ignorant...after all just how intelligent can they be...they elected Hillary!

You are seeing the craters with shadows INTO the depth of the craterfrom the front and then seeing the shadow created by the mound of soil at the back edge of the crater.

Why John, you seem to actually understand. Stereo pairs from the same location are available here: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html Scroll all the way down to ther start of the segment..AS11-40-5954 through AS11-40-5961 The thin thing is the handle of the Gold closeup camera and it IS angled as the photos above show.

3+ years and this is the best you manage? Verify the problems the Costella study made, have a Physicist endorse your position, we'll move on, should be a peice of cake, yes? If I remember correctly, John Costella was going to be the Lone Nutter's/Dealey Plaza photo historical record savior (who spent weeks courting him? then to be told by Costella, they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground) -- then lo and behold look what happened, Costella quote: "the Zapruder Film is a fraud...". THAT surprised even ME... So, whoops, no wonder why your pissed... psst, there are NO Elm Street lighting questions! Your expertise can remain in the studio... we don't need it! Is it ANY wonder why this case has languished... You have a VERY faulty memory bow wow.... No Elm street lighting problems? Surely you jest! Why finding "problems" with the lighting on Elm has become an epidemic due to the ignorant likes of White. Its been a real hoot puncturing this massive stupidity ! Costella HIMSELF verified the problems wiht his sign study...its impossible to take images from two different camera positions and alter them to make them appear to be from the same lens axis...yet his faulty study still stands both in print and on the web. Then he makes the really stupid claim that verticals in a photograph cannot change angle in a photograph and then he applies this the the LEANING Stemmons sign! Physicists needed? No way! None of this stuff is rocket science and poor old Costella, after being puffed up by Fetzer and the zombies at the cult forum, fancies himself an expert on photography. Sadly for the zombies he is no where near an expert, not even witn his self professed moniker as an ..."expert in the properties of light...hell he can't understand how a simple shadow works and last I checked a shadow is a "property of light" Now lets put YOU in the spotlight bow wow... in YOUR professional opinion is this shadow possible? You need a Physicists to figure this one out or will a simple emperical test do the trick? Mr. Light volunteers to do A SIMPLE EMPIRICAL TEST for us! I look forward to it! It will be very educational to see how the sun casts shadows from multiple directions. And I look forward to seeing where his shadow is in the UNCROPPED FRAME when the sun is directly behind him. Wow...what a treat...an EMPIRICAL TEST from Mr. Light himself. It should be very educational! Jack No Jack, I've already DONE (as have many others) the emperical tests and I KNOW the resutls. You on the other hand along with the the "Physicists" in question have made ignorant claims that this shadow pattern is impossible and that the shadow of Armstrong cannot be at the corner of the frame. And as usual you have done so WITH NO SUPPORTING documentation or evidence as usual. Thats the PROBLEM with ALL of both your and Costellas work...you JUST MAKE CRAP UP and claim it as fact. So it YOUR turn do the testing and prove yourself correct. You do know how to use a camera...right? SHow us your abilities as a photographer and highlight just how smart your "Physicists" really is. We will all be waiting with GREAT interest. Oh and just so EVERYONE at home can try the test as well let me give you directions: Go out on any sunny day late in the afternoon when the sun is very low in the sky. Set your camera lens to a moderate wide angle lens setting. Stand so that the sun is directly at your back and aim your camera so that your shadow is in the center of the frame. Try and keep your camera near level, not pointing down too much by down enough so that your shadow shows. ( this should not be a problem since the late day light will create a very long shadow of your body.) Take a picture. This is how White and Costella say all photos must look when the sun is behind the photographer. Now lets prove them both wrong. Keeping your camera at the same level as the first photo, simply turn your head and the camera to the right until yor body shadow is at the left edge of the picture...take another picture. Congratulations..you have just proven a "photo expert" and a "Physicist" wrong! Example by another photographer... http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html Other examples of shadows: http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html http://www.clavius.org/shad30.html http://www.clavius.org/trrnshdow.html Try to keep up lemming. The moon image is simply being used to show the folly of HEalys suggestion that this wonder boy Costella photo arguments needs to be countered by another Physist for the counter argument to have any value, which is of course bunk. Its also a wonderful chance to actuallly see Healy shuck and jive and avoid actually taking a stand. Besides the discussion of the Bronson slide was and is useless.

Long way from a "majority of Americans" Most interesting passage from the article and similar to the results of the Zogby poll show it's the ignorant, Democrats (same thing) and the uninformed young that believe this crap. "The poll found that a majority of young adults give at least some credence to a 9/11 conspiracy compared to less than a fourth of people 65 or older. Members of racial and ethnic minorities, people with only a high school education and Democrats were especially likely to suspect federal involvement in 9/11."

As I recall - Costella and friends thought that Jean Hill was also in the street and we know Jean straighten that blunder of White's out when she went on Black Op Radio and said that she had gotten back into the grass before the first shot was ever fired ... Besides, when you told this forum that you had not seen any evidence of alteration - you had already read Lifton's 'Pig on a Leash' in the Hoax book. Bill Miller Me-oh-my, a comment about not verifying film alteration because I don't have access to evidence that being the Zapruder in-camera original? What kind of a moron you take me for, Your not THAT stupid are you? I'm beginning to think you live and die to say; "you had not seen any evidence of alteration" .... Really a weak Lone Nutter case if that's all you got.... perhaps the Tinkster should re-run Dealey Plaza film/photo boot camp? LMAO... Sorry, I've listened to Black Op Radio four times, David Lifton, you know the guy who told you to get lost and John Costella, who won't waste his time with you, Rich DellaRosa who threw you off his forum, and Doug Horne who doesn't even know you exist... but you can help out here... Who controls the Moorman 5 photo and if I wanted to interview Mary Moorman who do I have to call and how much will it cost me? Get back to me, maybe we can do lunch, hell, maybe I can put in a good word for you Black Op.... nah! I have never claimed to be a photographic expert, but I know photograqphic experts and Costella is not one of them. A Photgraphic Expert (or even a good researcher) would have known why the MPI version of the Zfilm was not as sharp as the 1st generation copies that Life Magazine placed into print, but it seems that Costella was oblivious to this information. Even someone skilled in perspective or even someone who has studied drawing would have seen that Moorman's camera was above the tops of those motorcycles windshield in Mary's famous Polaroid, but not Costella. These are all indications in my view that Costella is not a Photographic expert nor even is he qualified to render opinions about photos because of his inability to read them properly. Bill Miller Please let us know who your photographic experts are, after all we'd like to give them the credit they so deserve. So folks, the above response is shorthand for, NOPE he doesn't want to compare credentials with John Costella. Why not get Gary's permission and start a thread about the MPI film...? I'm sure those folks are ready for more criticism... Better yet, get RGroden in here to talk about the Z-film, maybe his credentials [which I'd like to see in black and white] can pass muster.... Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was... You have the GUTS to comment on the Apollo shadow issue that both Costella and WHite claim is impossible? Come on Healy...stick it out there for once....or are you just plain chicken? what can I tell you Craigster, other than the simple fact-- Earth, Moon, it's STILL the same light source, the SUN! Shadows fall in one direction... Now if you have another light source to add to the mix, feel free informing us... Come on bow wow..spell it out...do you believe the shadow is possible AND natural or not? And yes..one light..the sun. Is it possible or not. On the record davie, show some BALLS for a change....agree with the igorant phd from down under and bozo White or deal with the facts and tell us all just how wrong they have it.... Quite stalling and pony up...for once actually BE a man.... And btw, for the record...no problem with this shadow AT ALL, easily repeted right here on earth in direct sunlight and only direct sunlight....and the shadows ALL fall the same direction..... post the picture, Dim-Bulb! I'll take a look when I get back to town... some of us do remotes on the weekend, you know..... The apollo image in question is posted above nutless....

I have never claimed to be a photographic expert, but I know photograqphic experts and Costella is not one of them. A Photgraphic Expert (or even a good researcher) would have known why the MPI version of the Zfilm was not as sharp as the 1st generation copies that Life Magazine placed into print, but it seems that Costella was oblivious to this information. Even someone skilled in perspective or even someone who has studied drawing would have seen that Moorman's camera was above the tops of those motorcycles windshield in Mary's famous Polaroid, but not Costella. These are all indications in my view that Costella is not a Photographic expert nor even is he qualified to render opinions about photos because of his inability to read them properly. Bill Miller Please let us know who your photographic experts are, after all we'd like to give them the credit they so deserve. So folks, the above response is shorthand for, NOPE he doesn't want to compare credentials with John Costella. Why not get Gary's permission and start a thread about the MPI film...? I'm sure those folks are ready for more criticism... Better yet, get RGroden in here to talk about the Z-film, maybe his credentials [which I'd like to see in black and white] can pass muster.... Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was... You have the GUTS to comment on the Apollo shadow issue that both Costella and WHite claim is impossible? Come on Healy...stick it out there for once....or are you just plain chicken? what can I tell you Craigster, other than the simple fact-- Earth, Moon, it's STILL the same light source, the SUN! Shadows fall in one direction... Now if you have another light source to add to the mix, feel free informing us... Come on bow wow..spell it out...do you believe the shadow is possible AND natural or not? And yes..one light..the sun. Is it possible or not. On the record davie, show some BALLS for a change....agree with the igorant phd from down under and bozo White or deal with the facts and tell us all just how wrong they have it.... Quite stalling and pony up...for once actually BE a man.... And btw, for the record...no problem with this shadow AT ALL, easily repeted right here on earth in direct sunlight and only direct sunlight....and the shadows ALL fall the same direction.....

I have never claimed to be a photographic expert, but I know photograqphic experts and Costella is not one of them. A Photgraphic Expert (or even a good researcher) would have known why the MPI version of the Zfilm was not as sharp as the 1st generation copies that Life Magazine placed into print, but it seems that Costella was oblivious to this information. Even someone skilled in perspective or even someone who has studied drawing would have seen that Moorman's camera was above the tops of those motorcycles windshield in Mary's famous Polaroid, but not Costella. These are all indications in my view that Costella is not a Photographic expert nor even is he qualified to render opinions about photos because of his inability to read them properly. Bill Miller Please let us know who your photographic experts are, after all we'd like to give them the credit they so deserve. So folks, the above response is shorthand for, NOPE he doesn't want to compare credentials with John Costella. Why not get Gary's permission and start a thread about the MPI film...? I'm sure those folks are ready for more criticism... Better yet, get RGroden in here to talk about the Z-film, maybe his credentials [which I'd like to see in black and white] can pass muster.... Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was... You have the GUTS to comment on the Apollo shadow issue that both Costella and WHite claim is impossible? Come on Healy...stick it out there for once....or are you just plain chicken?

Funny how the majority of Americans [and growing] are of the opinion that the official version is nothing but xxxx. Do you also believe that the Gulf of Tonkin 'incident' was real? The WC was the truth about Dallas or maybe that the Poles attacked Germany and some Communist set fire to the Reichstag?.....post away you Coincidence theorists and apologists for the Empire.....while the forces are evil are currently on your side the tide of history is not, I'm afraid..... so declare 'victory' and be smug....no one is buying the story you sell. Majority of American? Time to pony up there Lemming and post the actual poll that gave these numbers. No one is buying what YOU have to sell these days WITHOUT some actual DATA to back up your claims. ah.... hello, Craigster -- looks like the data is there, pony up time Ah ...hello David...looks like the data IS NOT THERE to support old LEMMINGS claim that "Funny how the majority of Americans [and growing] are of the opinion that the official version is nothing but xxxx." He told a little white lie and now he has gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar...quite typical of his normal postings it seems. And I suggest you need to take a remedial reading course because your are currently a failure. So lets see what LEMMING has posted. First poll was of NEW YORKERS...not Americans at large so it IN NO WAY supports his original claim. Second poll is consists of Americans at large AND NONE OF THE NUMBERS support his orignal claim... "Funny how the majority of Americans [and growing] are of the opinion that the official version is nothing but xxxx. " LEMMING was simply ranting with NO facts to back up his rant...simple as that. And now YOU have shown us all you cant read. LOL! When will you jokers ever learn...You think I made my original post without KNOWING exactly what the facts were and that LEMMING was lying...sheesh... TIME FOR YOU AND LEMMING TO PONY UP ... you have both been caught.

Funny how the majority of Americans [and growing] are of the opinion that the official version is nothing but xxxx. Do you also believe that the Gulf of Tonkin 'incident' was real? The WC was the truth about Dallas or maybe that the Poles attacked Germany and some Communist set fire to the Reichstag?.....post away you Coincidence theorists and apologists for the Empire.....while the forces are evil are currently on your side the tide of history is not, I'm afraid..... so declare 'victory' and be smug....no one is buying the story you sell. Majority of American? Time to pony up there Lemming and post the actual poll that gave these numbers. No one is buying what YOU have to sell these days WITHOUT some actual DATA to back up your claims.